*I meant to say "I wasn't informed of this agreement" in point 1.

I'll answer with respect to the section north of Grand Canal heading past the petrol station on Adamstown Road. (It's hard to tell from your changeset where the other deleted sections (if any) are, since osm doesn't plot the location of deleted objects).

I'm not against having on-road cycleway tags in cases like Adamstown Road, but you just deleted the separately mapped cycle paths without replacing them with on-road cycleway tags.
That's why I posted my comment yesterday.

Anyway, to address your points:
1. When I started contributing to OSM, I asked the OpenStreetMap Ireland group on Telegram what the consensus was on which cycle track/lane mapping approach to use in Ireland. I was informed of this agreement, rather to follow the guidelines/examples given by OSM (wiki).
I would like to know more about this general agreement.

2. The cycle path is not still mapped as part of the road. North of the Grand Canal, where you deleted the separately mapped cycle paths, there isn't a cycle path mapped as part of the road.

3. Readability of the map depends on what application you are using to view the map?
If you want to show that there is only one bridge when there are several ways marked as bridge, you can add a bridge area/outline as per osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
This approach is widely used around Dublin for example.

4. The crossing node at intersections with the cycle path and minor roads showed this need to yield. For example I added crossings where the path intersects the petrol station entrace/exit: osm.org/node/9840063853
Admittedly I didn't tag every single minor road intersection node with a highway=crossing node, but anyone who wishes to add this extra level of detail is free to do so.

It was exactly because of the frequent yielding that I chose to use a separately mapped cycle path here.
With the on-road cycleaway tag there is no way to indicate that cyclists must yield at every junction. How can the on-the-road cycleway tag convey the need to yield to every minor road/driveway?

Hi Dafo43,
Can you please give an explanation for deleting some shared cycle+foot paths around Adamstown Road?

Hi, your source of information for naming this road osm.org/way/598950660 is copyrighted. It can't be used as a source for adding stuff in OSM.

My previous comment was supposed to contain this link aswell: osm.org/way/1123737263

Some of the roads you added don't seem to exist anymore.

If you look at the Bing aerial imagery (Apr 2021) and compare with Maxar, it looks like some of the roads were only built for temporary construction vehicle access, and removed once the north runway was completed.

These are the two roads I noticed. I didn't go through your whole changeset.
osm.org/way/1123737261#map=19/53.43467/-6.27275
osm.org/way/1123737267

What you did was sufficient to restore the connection - thanks for that.

However I have made further changes including removing the unnecessary parallel cycle tracks since there was already more suitable tagging present on the road. Also made a couple of other changes which are unrelated to yours.
osm.org/changeset/126869133

I expect that when komoot and other's do their next periodic update of their OSM map data, the route planner will send cyclists going from Spawell to Tallaght village via Glenview Lawns.

I've checked out komoot, and I think I see what the problem is.
If you look at komoot's map (which currently shows the version of the map before your changes) somebody has disconnected the cycle track coming from the M50 underpass where it joins the main road at Glenview Lawns and instead connected it to a foot path. As a consequence, komoot thinks there is no way to cycle from Spawell to Tallaght village via Glenview Lawns.
osm.org/way/1077137370

What do you mean wasn't working?
This is a common approach to mapping roads that have bicycle symbols painted on the general traffic lanes.
If the route planner doesn't understand cycleway=shared_lane, then I think that is a problem with the routing software, not the map data.

Using your approach, how would a route planner know the difference between this road, where cyclists share the lane with all other vehicles, and a segregated off-road cycle track such as osm.org/way/1011547038?

Hi,
After reading the description it sounds like you may not have noticed that the cycle path is already mapped here.

The cycle lane information is already contained here, but using a different approach, whereby the information is stored in the road object itself (cycleway=shared_lane): osm.org/way/26655357#map=19/53.29020/-6.33535

Ok. I have added an unmarked crossing so pedestrians can get from the footpath at the point just after the cycle and footpath ends, to the road.

Hi, I'm not certain, but it looks like the connection that exists between the shared cycle and foot path at Tallaght Bypass (osm.org/way/404665415) and Glenview Park, was removed by this changeset.
As a result there is no way for a cyclist to continue from that shared cycle and foot surface at Tallaght Bypass into Glenview Park, and vice versa.
If this was you and you feel there is a better way of representing such a connection, I'm happy to discuss. Otherwise, I will restore the link.

Hi,
It looks like this changeset and possibly also other changesets have changed some roads/paths to be inside a tunnel (tunnel=yes). I have changed those roads/paths to not be inside a tunnel in this changeset:
osm.org/changeset/125196968

Hey, I saw that some of this Old Lucan Road was marked private on OSM. The satellite imagery looks different to me than what was mapped, so I reduced the distance of restricted road accordingly. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Hi, I'm not sure if you know but there's a 30 km/h speed limit on Charlestown Road in the eastbound direction, according to a sign placed just as you come onto it from North Road. I had tagged the limit as 30 from there to the end of Charlestown Place, as there was no later sign to indicate otherwise between there and the junction with St Margaret's Road. Let me know anyway if you believe there was reason for me not to tag it so. Thanks.

Hey, this is not the River Poddle. The Poddle is further north, it's mapped in OSM here: osm.org/relation/3609742

I don't believe that cycleway:left=separate is duplicating the information conveyed by the already drawn way. It is just indicating that there is a cycleway related to this road and that it has been drawn as a separate way.

That is true, but I was referring to the southernmost end of Idrone Close where it meets the green. There is an eastbound path just north of the steps.

Hi, forgive me if you already know this, but this cycle lane (osm.org/way/889767414) is already accounted for by the tag (cycleway:left=lane) on Firhouse Road itself.

If this separately mapped bike lane is to be kept, then Firhouse Road should be changed to (cycleway:left=separate) to indicate that the lane has been separately mapped. That's my understanding at least, based on (osm.wiki/Key:cycleway).

As it is just a painted lane on the road with no deviation from the road or physical separation from cars, I'm not convinced of the benefit of mapping it separately. Also it needs to be adjusted to tie in with the junctions at Knocklyon Rd, Woodbrook Park and Ballyroan Rd. For that reason alone I think its easier to just have tags on the Firhouse Rd. Just my two cents.

Finally I'm not sure that leisure=track and sport=cycling are appropriate for a cycle lane here.

Hi, is there a reason that osm.org/way/866124202 (path coming out of Idrone Close and heading immediately east towards Coolamber) was deleted?